The Bridge that Widens the Gap Critical Geopolitical research concerning the construction of post-colonial EU-Turkey relations

(1)

The Bridge that Widens the Gap

Critical Geopolitical research concerning the

construction of post-‐colonial EU-‐Turkey relations

Richard Huttinga

(2)

The Bridge that Widens the Gap

Critical Geopolitical research concerning the

construction of post-‐colonial EU-‐Turkey relations

Masterthesis Human geography

Specialization: ‘Europe: borders, identities and governance’

Richard Huttinga

S0725749

Nijmegen, June 2013

Thesis supervisor: dr. O.T. Kramsch

Radboud University Nijmegen

(3)

Acknowledgement

This thesis is developed in the master Human Geography –Europe: borders, identities and governance. Studying critical geopolitics embarked the need to further deconstruct classical geopolitical narratives. Taking on this critical view on classical geopolitical theories lay bare the inconspicuous position of geopolitical Turkey and encouraged to conduct this research. I want to thank my thesis supervisor dr. Olivier T. Kramsch for his ‘spot on’ theoretical insights. As well as the supervisor of the Institute for Turkish Studies, drs. Armand Sag, for spending his time on reading and discussing this research, and for giving me the opportunity to deepen the research in the setting of the academic institute.

(4)

Temporary One, Fleetwood Mac

Where are you darlin', when my

Moon is risin', and your

Sun is shinin' down

What are you doin', are you

Missin' me

The way that I'm missin' you now

The river goes on and on, and the

Sea that divides us is a

Temporary one, and the

Bridge will bring us back together

What are you doin', goin'

Down in to Soho as I

Get my rest tonight

What are you doin', are you

Busy with your world

(5)

1 Introduction

“The irony of practical geopolitical representations of place is that, in order to succeed, they actually necessitate the abrogation of genuine geographical knowledge about the diversity and complexity of places as social entities.” (Ó Tuathail & Agnew, 1992: 202).

Manifestations of sensitivity and discursiveness about geopolitics and language are very expressively being represented in discussions concerning geopolitical Turkey. The quest of submerging into geographical and geopolitical Turkey, at some point resulted in the Google search on the term ‘fault line Turkey’. It subsequently brought me to an insight that -‐ sometimes quite paradoxically-‐ simple details can reveal large and complex structures. This specific search didn’t bring me to different digressions on plate tectonics or to news items concerning the highly damaging earthquake of October 2011. Instead, I was directed towards Google Scholar and Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’, where Huntington emphasized on fault lines between different clashing civilizations. The civilizations opposing each other through the different cultures they represent collide on these fault lines and therefore in Huntington’s theory the fault lines ought to be the battle lines of the future (Huntington, 2011). The rhetoric –considering the fatalities because of earthquakes, the painful rhetoric-‐ of the presence of ‘fault lines’ involving Turkey’s geophysical and geopolitical position, depicts a certain inappropriateness within this case. First of all because of the inconvenience that the web search directly steered towards a discursive practice in geopolitical theory by blurring the difference between the ‘physical fault lines’ and the ‘fault lines as a human construct’. The natural fractures of the Eurasian, Arabian and African plate, centre in Turkey and create an area susceptible to earthquakes. How did these fractures become a metaphor for categorized cultural differences? And second, Huntington’s way of using the fault lines, implies something definite and impossible to restore. The different fault lines could become more or less stabilized but, in any case, will never merge and become whole again. Whether this accounts for cultural differences can be argued when taking into account the development and changeability of cultures.

Turkey often explicitly posits an exceptional case within geopolitical theories and discussions, being the border of different civilizations, religions, political ideologies, security issues, energy crossroads and so forth (Yanik, 2011). Could Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations have invoked a

(8)

Huntingtonian thesis but did often commit themselves to the rhetoric of the used metaphors. Said (2005), criticizes Huntington in the article ‘The Clash of Ignorance’ claiming the thesis to be a ‘gimmick’ (Said, 2005: 149) while also using Huntington’s term ‘Clash’. It should be realized that Said uses this metaphor in a cynical way, but could it be argued that his thesis contributes to constructing a social reality through this discourse of Clashes. Notable is that by both criticizers as well as devotees, the linguistic form of Huntington’s thesis has much been replicated through the narrative of a Clash (Lesser, 2006). ‘The Clash of Ignorance’ (Said, 2005), ‘the Clash of Barbarisms’ (Achar, 2005), ‘Clash of Security Issues’ (Ogozlu, 2002), ‘Clash of Emotions’ (Moisi, 2007), ‘True Clash of Civilizations’ (Inglehart & Norris, 2003), ‘Clash of Norms’ (Powel, 2009) and so forth –all pick up on the speech of difference (not even mentioning the texts/articles/contributions that take Huntington’s thesis as inducement for their own purposes (Dahlman, 2004), (Yanik, 2011)).

Within geopolitical debates, ‘geopolitical Turkey’ is and has been a much-‐discussed issue. Striking is the seemingly conscious use of language within these debates. Whether Turkey is being described in terms of fault lines, being a bridge, lock, key, hinge, gate, crossroad, pivot area or torn-‐state; each of the qualifications and geopolitical representations ascribes a specific strategic role to Turkey e.g. liminal Turkey (Yanik, 2011). Articles and books that digress on Turkish politics, seem to often encounter terms like ‘Turkey in-‐between the East and the West’ in their titles and when not, definitely make references to the ‘difficulty’, ‘importance’ and ‘interests’ of the Turkish geographical role (Yanik, 2009: 531-‐532). Within these discussions about Turkey -‐despite the fact that the different theories do not agree on the Turkish position-‐ a trend is recognizable in which Turkey seems to be both the centre of the discussion while simultaneously being the passive object that depends on surrounding processes. All characterisations of the geopolitical role imply a certain dependent position of Turkey; a key is pretty useless without a door that it can lock or unlock and what would the function of a bridge be without two points that need to be connected? The geopolitical genre developed into a discipline where the all-‐seeing geopolitician reduced complexity into fixed categories by stripping plurality and multiplicity. Within this act of reducing complexity, metaphors serve a specific role in being the analytics of the explanation (Ó Tuathail, Dalby, & Routledge, 2006: 121), thereby creating breeding ground for exaggerations. The risk of stigmatizing Turkey seems to be taken by the discursive use of language and images, abrogating necessity of genuine geographical knowledge on diversity and complexity of places as social entities (Ó Tuathail & Agnew, 1992).

(9)

Revealing is the image that is being derived when integrating the different geographical representations into a complete view of Turkey –an important feature of metaphor. Then, Turkey, the so-‐called ‘torn state’, then connects two separate points being a ‘bridge’, meanwhile being described standing on ‘crossroads’ where choices on directions need to be made. Through paradoxical representations of Turkey as a 'gate', 'lock', 'hinge' and 'key', authors fail to compose a unifying image. The question arises whether simplifying theories and metaphors –in contrast to their actual goal-‐ aren’t confusing and unrepresentative of reality. Knowing that this combining of different metaphors more or less creates a situation where the ‘pot is calling the cattle black’ -‐participating in exaggerating reality-‐ it does hint at a fundamental point of this research: how do these geopolitical representations exist next to each other, and how do they create a so-‐called self-‐fulfilling-‐prophecy? (Lakoff & Johnson in Musolff, 2012: 2). Even more important, how do these metaphors depict and influence Turkeys relations and how do they locate difference? Unravelling the dynamics of visions on geopolitical Turkey will create new insights in the use of geopolitical representations constructing and conserving a relation of dependence; the bridge that derives its right of existence through, and only through the plots of land it connects and which presence is thanked to the gracefulness of the bridge builder. This research thereby complies with the

notions of Van Houtum & Strüver (2002), signifying the geographical importance of

representations to lie within the people who limit, separate and border. The case of geopolitical Turkey highlights how people and institutions construct and institutionalize narratives through the discursive use of geographical representations.

1.1 Relevance

Compliant with the study of critical geopolitics, this research critically deconstructs discursive metaphor use concerning geopolitical Turkey within EU policy and reports on EU affairs. In doing so, it leaves space open for critical geopolitical inquiry, asking critical questions of how geopolitical discourse functions politically (O’ Tuathail, 1988; Dalby, 1989; in Dalby, 1990). Divergence of language use within theorization and broadcasting on geopolitical Turkey, asks for more profound research. Everyday images and practices concerning Turkey are composed through a narration of a dependent in-‐between Turkey and the European Union seems to adopt and proclaim the use of these geopolitical representations. Hülsse (2006) calls for an increasing emphasize on the role of imaginations and metaphors within discourses. Imaginations are nowhere more apparent than in the linguistic means of imagining, such as

(10)

metaphors. These metaphors are not only means of imagining but also construct social reality (Hülsse, 2006: 397). Continuing speech acts on classifying, selecting, arranging, organizing etc. of states, religions and cultures do not seem to do any right to the current complex and diversified Turkish state and its citizens. Ongoing categorisations seem to keep falling into the same stigmatizing and simplifying verdicts. This research critically deconstructs these vast images of geopolitical Turkey and attempts to refute the use of these images by emphasizing on the structuring post-‐colonial role they perform and could perform in EU-‐Turkey relations. This is considered both renewing and prerequisite for fully exposing the comprehensiveness of power relations between Turkey and the EU, especially in the dynamics of Turkey following the ‘path towards EU accession’. Contemporary research on Turkey remained in highlighting the Turkish uniqueness but undermines the shaping of reality by these representations. The ‘constructedness’ of the representations is being implied but too little being analysed (Yanik, 2011: 82). The geopolitical representations seem to determine power structures and balances. In contemporary discussions concerning geopolitical Turkey, there appears to be taken little notion of the presence and influence of the constructed images. Simplifying categorisations of Turkey must be acknowledged from the outset that their definition is a socially constructed one. Constructs have changed and do change in political significance over the centuries (Lewis et al, 1997; in Dahlman, 2004: 554), but seem to be interpreted as being the undifferentiated truth. Metaphors are extremely useful in creating a favourable context to pursue policies. The combining of a discursive practice with a geopolitical representation, present an international function and identity: “metaphors of vision are more powerful than a mere geopolitical representation or a mere use of metaphor” (Yanik, 2009: 533). The possibility of representations becoming vehicles for political gain, should be an inducement for a critical attitude towards the position of Turkey as presented in geopolitical debates.

The main reason to stress all this is because of the possible deficiencies of this role of metaphor as ‘social construct’. Prominent Critical Geopolitician Ó Tuathail (2006) claims that understanding the geopolitical process, requires studying geopolitics as a discourse and the cultural context that derives its meaning. Analyzing geopolitics being a discourse with constitutive ambitions, asks for being “attentive to the ways in which global space is labelled, metaphors are deployed and visual images are used in this process of making stories and constructing images of world politics” (Ó Tuathail, 2006: 1). And exactly that is what this research will concern: attentiveness to the deploying of metaphors concerning geopolitical Turkey. Through this research, the call on ‘academics to advance learning through promoting a better debate and argumentation on geopolitics and not to promote any state over any other

(11)

state’, by Ó Tuathail; is being answered. “Geopolitics is not a domain of objective stories about world politics. It is world politics itself, about states, cultures, identities, discourses and power” (Ó Tuathail, 2006: 12). Classical geopolitical ideas and concepts have been adopted and adapted to help justify foreign and domestic policy-‐making. This is especially the case in Turkey, and asks for a critical approach.

Prior research on geopolitical Turkey and the discursive use of language within the EU has pointed to contribute to the geopolitical narrative of EU enlargement (Dahlman, 2004), the construction of Turkish ‘exceptionalism’ through Turkish foreign policy (Yanik, 2011). It also connects these propositions claiming the case of Turkey illustrates the critical geopolitical argument that geopolitical discourse shapes and is shaped by foreign policy-‐making (Bilgin, 2007). Metaphor is part of a broad conceptual framework, encompassing the West’s view of itself as opposed to its view of the East (Sandikcioglu, 2000: 300). Still, a lacuna in research can be found in the explicit use of metaphors and the material effects of the geopolitical discourse. This needs to be further deepened. Contemporary research can be intensified by -‐instead of following the origins of language focussing on the implications of metaphor use on geographical Turkey. For it isn’t the bridge, buffer or gate itself that should be the topic of study, but the actors applying the geopolitical representations. Then, deconstructing the whole narrative of ‘exceptional’ Turkey in EU policy and documentation not only creates insight in the construction of social reality but also reveals the language can become a self-‐fulfilling prophecy. The neglect of Huntingtonian dividing is not being invalidated by emphasizing exceptional Turkey, also reinforces the narrative of dependence and inequality.

1.2 Structure

The research can roughly be divided into a part describing and legitimizing theoretical and methodological choices, as well as a part that out of this theory analyses metaphorical implications on geopolitical Turkey. The proposed research design, which is being explicated in chapter two, will be further substantiated through the theoretical framework in chapter three. This chapter synergizes theory on metaphor analysis, critical geopolitics and post colonialism into an appropriate framework for analyzing representations of geopolitical Turkey. Highlighting the commonalities of these different theoretical movements on discourse and the construction of reality will underpin the critical analysis of contemporary postures towards geopolitical Turkey. How to derive answers from the research question e.g. the

(12)

methodology chapter formulates the practical interpretation and application of metaphor use based on the defined theoretical underpinnings and further defines the research strategy and research material.

The analysis chapters (5, 6 and 7) will be constructed by means of the different metaphors and the image of Turkey they present separately as their way of being more connected to a larger network of representations. Chapter five deconstructs the ways in which the geopolitical representations imagine Turkey by highlighting their specific characteristics; of for example having a function to connect (bridge) or having the abilities to block (shield). The location of power is chosen as determinant of grouping and decomposing the representations of Turkey. In order to reduce the geopolitical representations to a notion of postcoloniality and a narrative of dependence, chapter 6 and 7 bespeak metaphors as part of a more overarching whole and therefore discuss their interconnectedness. The representations are not treated separately but are regarded as the interconnected potential of the ways in which they define difference, present borders and structure power relations. Not wanting to linger on the theoretical level of the representations of Turkey, the research also uses the analysis to elucidate on the material effects of representing Turkey, for example in the ways borders are being represented and difference is being defined.

Altogether, the conclusion will contribute to an understanding of the ways in which the use of geopolitical representations of Turkey, used by the EU, can be characterized by its history of discursive use and post-‐colonial potential and the ways in which both turn out to be revealing for past and contemporary power relations.

2 Research Design

2.1 Research goal & research question

The research focuses on the geopolitical speech act as a whole, determining Turkey as a conspicuous state within the geopolitical globe and the ways through which metaphors define and materialize dependence, difference and inequality. The goal of this research is to get to the bottom of the different metaphors that are used concerning geopolitical Turkey, to ultimately reveal post-‐colonial materializing of metaphor use. This to ‘reconstruct metaphors

(13)

construction of reality’ (Hülsse, 2006: 404), by analyzing the ways in which the EU-‐Turkey ratios present and represent geopolitical Turkey. The extraction, form, influence and manifestations of the different metaphors will be critically deconstructed. Paradoxically, the (criticized) metaphors become a tool for fully understanding geopolitical Turkey and contribute to constituting the hypothesis of metaphors determining a post-‐colonial relation between Turkey and the EU. This leading to the following question:

To what extent does the constructed reality of metaphor influence the definition of difference on the physical and conceptual borders between Turkey and the EU, and how does metaphor determine the past-‐ and contemporary EU-‐Turkey relations in a discursive and post-‐colonial way?

The research question can be disassembled into different domains. The constructed reality of metaphor covers the area of theoretically unravelling the field of metaphor through the lens of critical geopolitics. Thereby, it defines metaphor in a legitimate manner and focuses on the geopolitical aspects of metaphor as a form of representation. To specify these generalities in the case of Turkey, the research seeks for the appearance of different metaphors in EU policy and their geographical implications. Using different kinds of sources deploying the representations. Lastly, this research focuses on how the conceptions of the Turkish borders, e.g. the definitions of difference-‐ materialize the effects of the post-‐colonial narrative.

Metaphor constructing reality,

How can cognitive and conceptual functioning of metaphor be distinguished from more lexical and linguistic forms of metaphor?

How does critical geopolitics perceive language and metaphor? How does metaphor function within discourse?

(Discursive) Metaphor and Turkey,

Which metaphors appear in EU policy regarding Turkey’s geopolitical position? Do certain metaphors dominate the research data?

How can the derived metaphors be characterized? Do certain actors dominate the discussions? Can trends in metaphor use be recognized?

(14)

To what extent do the metaphors treat difference and borders in a digital or analog way?

To what extent do the metaphors place initiative to act with third parties or with Turkey?

How do metaphors imagine EU external borders? How do metaphors materialize Turkish borders?

How do metaphors determine discussion around Turkey’s role upon the EU?

Disassembling the research question into different parts doesn’t mean that these parts are regarded separately. Combining the different facets of the research question will result in deriving conclusions out of research based on adequate theoretical underpinnings and convincing practical application.

2.2 Legitimizing

2.2.1 Assembling linguistic metaphor, critical geopolitics and postcolonialism

Linking literature on metaphor to critical geopolitics raises the question whether the metaphor as linguistic sign, takes on material consequences for Turkey. The research wants to centralize these material consequences first by shedding light on the ways in which EU policy spreads

metaphor. The Huntingtonian taxonomy of differences and classifications invokes a certain

speech act that, even when countered, becomes a part of reality and is translated into contemporary metaphor use, i.e. in a certain acceptation of the Huntington thesis (Kilinç, 2009). An ideological debate of Turkey, whether or not being permitted access to the EU, sought and seeks to define the EU, in terms of civilizations (Dahlman, 2004). Through analysis, practical implications of metaphor discourse on geopolitical Turkey are excavated and considered in comparative perspective. This is rendered legitimate because the metaphors applied to Turkey are regarded deeply geographical. It is geographical, because the presented

images of Turkey are reduced to mere terms and labels. The way in which metaphor

materializes geographical and geopolitical images is being displayed in, for example, the use of the contraposition ‘Turkey being a bridge or breach between the East and West and/or between Islam and Christianity”, by the CEPS 2005 (Centre for European Policy Studies). In this case the bridge embodies European Turks whom constitute relations and exchange between Turkey and the EU developing their identities into something post-‐national, cosmopolitan. The breach presumably –definition isn’t unambiguous and despite of

(15)

categorizing groups under these labels, the concept is only mentioned once in the research paper-‐ proposes the Euro-‐Turks that still have a strong affiliation with Turkey (Kaya & Kentel, 2005). Material differences are being drawn on the difference based on integration towards so-‐ called ‘European values’, that imply some kind of social, political, economic and cultural standard. Civilizational differences are being captured and used under the underdeveloped labels ‘bridge’ and ‘breach’. Material consequences also appear when the liminal position, that Turkey posits, is being called-‐upon by the US for ‘being a key within the Middle East conflict and should act upon that role through a mediating role’ (EurActiv, 2009e). Exceptional Turkey being a key is thus being translated towards mediating the Middle East conflict. The relevance of these examples is not located within the questions whether Turkey posits the qualities of mediating within the Middle East conflict or whether Euro-‐Turks can’t be distinguished on their level of craving towards their home country, it is the discursiveness of the disputable exceptional role of Turkey that risks being applied for (illegitimate) goals and derives its use through being acted upon and upmost constructs a certain reality.

Seemingly trivial metaphor use within EU policy conceals, determines, structures and narrates the EU-‐Turkey borders and relationships, in a post-‐colonial way. Within policy the mobilization of simple geographical understandings are being exposed, and therefore analysis of metaphor use within EU policy can help to understand and derive the ways of social constructing post-‐colonial Turkey (Ó Tuathail & Agnew, 1992: 191) (paragraph 2.2.4). EU-‐ Turkey relations became ‘subsumed’ into Huntington’s civilizational thesis resulting in the bolstering of arguments against Turkish membership (Dahlman, 2004). Analyzing metaphor-‐ use within policy on EU-‐Turkey relations will create insight in the ways in which the EU materializes post-‐coloniality through the use of metaphors. The focus upon EU policy and policy debates could be rendered as comprised for locating postcolonial EU if not being aware of, for example, Ahmad (1997) claiming: “postcolonial theory is marked not by the specificity of its object, since its object is infinitely dispersed and indeterminable, but by its hermeneutic procedure, above all as style” (Ahmad, 1997: 367). The construction of a postcolonial Turkey-‐ EU relation, takes place through the repeated narration of Turkish exceptionalism. Noxolo (2008) acknowledges that this function of metaphor highlighting the connections and relationships, determining research agendas, altering geographic knowledge and by constructing and depicting disciplines, serves as instrument of power. And besides this, Noxolo most importantly argues that the instrument of power to silence and marginalize the interest of the ‘other’, inherently becomes post-‐colonial. The metaphors, despite of the way

(16)

they are used, decide both what is geography and who does geography and thus construct and legitimatize power relations (Noxolo, 2008).

2.2.2 Research focus

The choice to tackle the role of metaphor concerning geopolitical Turkey and the focus out of a EU position is made because of intrinsic as well as more pragmatic reasons. Metaphors on geopolitical Turkey could rise out of notions on the geographical position of Turkey being in-‐ between, buffering, being part of both Europe and the Middle East. This liminal position of ‘torn’ Turkey isn’t exclusively been applied upon Turkey. The widely debated Huntingtonian civilizational thesis also described countries as Russia and Mexico to be important torn countries. Turkey distinguishes itself from these countries –as Huntington claims-‐ because of it being the most obvious, prototypical and profound torn state (Huntington, 2011). Torn Turkey proves to have many different representations, but within the appearances consistently acts between Europe/the EU/the West and the Islam/Muslim world/the East. The research annotating on the EU-‐Turkey relations complies with the vivid discussions around the Turkish accession of the EU. The pursuit for Turkey to join the EU, created a certain comprehension of Turkey being dependent of EU judgements. Exactly this relation and the use of geopolitical representations needs to be deepened in the light of the relation of power inequality and dependence, especially in the light of the Huntington civilizational divides and the potential that these EU-‐Turkey relations had to boost contemporary inequality.

More pragmatic, a certain limit on this already broad notion of metaphor use upon geopolitical Turkey is requisite. Mainly Yanik (2009, 2011) conducted quite a body of research upon the posture of metaphor use in Turkish politics and is one of more scholars that emphasized research on the origins of different metaphors, but always out of a Turkish point of view. The choice than to focus on EU use of representations explicitly doesn’t mean that this research falls in its own pitfall of discursiveness upon one-‐sided analyses on geopolitical diversity out of a EU perspective. Prominent Turkish actors will also be appointed but Turkish-‐EU ratios will have the main emphasis. Because of a possible lack on knowledge on specific geographical, political and geopolitical Turkey, collaboration was sought at the ‘Institute for Turkish Studies (ITS). A three-‐month internship provides realising this research through benefiting from an environment of expertise upon specific Turkish matters and co-‐operating in the ‘International Review of Turkish Studies’ (IRTS). Concerning the time focus, it is being chosen to research EU policy and documentation upward the year of 2000. Because of the December 1999

(17)

happenings, where Turkey was being declared ‘candidate state destined to join the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to other candidate States’, a historic watershed in EU-‐ Turkish relations had been reached (Dismorr, 2008: 52). Second of all the beginning of the twenty-‐first century was being marked by the 9/11 matters, reviving the Huntington thesis and the classification speech acts concerning Turkey (Dismorr, 2008), (Yanik, 2011), (Kilinç, 2009). All rendered to demarcate a period that is worth to put in perspective EU-‐Turkey relations.

2.2.3 Importance and feasibility

I reckon this research to be beneficial to the current understanding of the role of metaphor within critical geopolitics. Analysis of metaphor enables us to look behind the explicit utterance and reveal conceptual structures that speakers could be not aware of. The yielded

knowledge helps to ‘bridge’ the studies of metaphor and critical geopolitics. Focussing on the

specific role of metaphor can help further understanding the discursive ways in which language constructs discourse and, as this research will indicate, this is more than relevant for the case of geopolitical Turkey. Choices on the case being broad and overarching are consciously made because that is exactly what discourse tries to construct being the ‘superstructure of texts’ and applying a specific stock of metaphor; becoming the

(18)

3 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical backbone of this study is formed by critical geopolitics, and through critical geopolitics a focus is brought upon metaphor and metaphor analysis. Literature on metaphor analysis displays developments, differences and (therefore) discussions within the fields of metaphor analysis and discourse analysis. The research field can be characterized by the differences between metaphor analysis in disciplines like linguistics, semiotics, hermeneutics and philosophy of language on one side, and metaphor analysis in politics, political geography and history on the other. These differences manifest themselves through both ontological as well as epistemological ways of knowing, understanding and using metaphor. Metaphor and metaphor analysis are introduced in this chapter and by using a more sophisticated view on metaphor analysis theory, the role of metaphor as geopolitical representation in the field of critical geopolitics are outlined and defined for this specific research. I reckon it to be important to illuminate the background of research regarding metaphor and metaphor analysis, to create more understanding of the origins of metaphor research. This also to further redefine the role of metaphor in relation to discourse and critical geopolitics, ultimately to create an ontological base where metaphor is presented a cognitive and discursive tool (which will function to get underneath the reasoning of the rulers and ruled) (Yanik, 2009). At last, post-‐colonial implications of metaphor use are mentioned by envisioning how EU policy can be regarded through a post-‐colonial lens. This chapter forms the legitimization of the research foundations and shows why research of metaphor in critical geopolitics is essential; answering the questions of what metaphor is, how metaphor manifests itself and how it creates its own post-‐colonial reality.

3.1 Metaphor analysis

3.1.1 Bamboo-‐ and iron curtains

The (political) significance of metaphor can be traced back to the origins of speech(ing) and democracy. The whole of negotiated and distributed power made actors want to persuade each other and got skilled in this persuasion. Aristotle deracinated Plato’s opposing of reason and emotion, and advocate for an acknowledgement that reasoned persuasion could be influenced by emotional response. Aristotle and the primeval of metaphor definitions, elucidates metaphor to be some kind of ‘transfer’. Meanings are transferred in such a way that a certain

(19)

‘thing’ is given a name that belongs to something else (Charteris-‐Black, 2005: 6,21,31). This definition in terms of ‘a movement’ was called ‘meta-‐phorein’, which means: ‘to carry over’ and thereby stresses the act of transition (Carver & Pikalo, 2008a: 2). Within metaphor analysis this movement between terms is described as movement between the ‘source’-‐ and the ‘target domain’. The common sense and literal meaning of a word or phrase is referred to as ‘the source domain’ (or vehicle), while the metaphoric sense differs from the common or basic sense and is known as the ‘target domain’ (or topic) (Lakoff, 1993). Regarding the metaphor of geopolitical Turkey being a bridge, this would mean that the common sense and known concept is ‘the bridge’ and transfers metaphorical sense to ‘Turkey’. The shift in the use of a word or phrase is thus caused by a metaphor giving the word a new sense (Charteris-‐Black, 2005), creating an extremely important source of ambiguity wherein politicians can manoeuvre while speaking, thinking and making policy (Yanik, 2009).

Disputable in this transformation of meaning is the question ‘where the truth is located’. Generally we understand the common sense of a word being located in a dictionary. Metaphor would lead away from the basic known definition of a certain word. Metaphor arises within our knowledge of how words and phrases are used and can only rise within a certain discourse, e.g. within knowledge on how words should be used. The Asian expression used for referring to the boundary between Communist China, and the non-‐Communists neighbours is ‘the Bamboo Curtain’. The geopolitical boundary between communism and non-‐communism in Asia was comparable to the European or ‘Western’ equivalent, which is called the ‘Iron Curtain’ (separating Soviet Russia and their non-‐Communist neighbours to the West) (Charteris-‐Black, 2005: 31,34). Within that specific situation on the border of China the metaphor of Bamboo was more adaptable then referring to, for example, an Iron Curtain. To recognize the concept of the bridge -‐when used in context of Turkey-‐ requires some knowledge of Turkey as a geographical state that posits an exceptional position. Also, some basic knowledge on the features, characteristics and functions of a bridge is requisite. Appreciating metaphor is therefore much more complicated than a literal understanding of a text. This because of the requirement of contextual information -‐something a literal understanding by definition doesn’t need (Glucksberg, 2001). Because of all different associations with the source domain, metaphor can alter strongly. Divergence of individuals using metaphor, depending on their knowledge and experience with language, can cause waves of novel metaphors in an ocean of conventional metaphors (Charteris-‐Black, 2005: 32).

(20)

3.1.2 Cognitive and conceptual metaphor

Distinction within the whole of metaphor and metaphor analysis can be made between the classical-‐ and the more cognitive and conceptual notions of figurative speech (Ponterotto, 2000). Classical concepts of metaphor stress how metaphor transforms meaning from literal to figurative, identified in samples of discourse. The classical conception of metaphor is mainly constituted out of classical rhetorical theory where –bluntly said-‐ because of the mere rhetorical essence, metaphor as such is irrelevant for political analysis. To criticize this statement, Hülsse (2006) claims that metaphor often sheds new light upon the target domain (the domain that we try to understand e.g. Turkey being the bridge) thereby creating a new kind of reality (Hülsse, 2006). Thus implicitly stating that metaphor surpasses the possibilities that it would inhabit within classical rhetoric’s, where it would function in a more pragmatic, lexical way (Cameron, 1999a). This more discursive interpretation of metaphor can be described as ‘cognitive and conceptual’, emphasizing the ’framing and guide thinking character’ that metaphor possesses. Within the use and practice of metaphor and metaphor analysis this would mean that the classical-‐rhetoric notion points to the selective usage of metaphors as linguistic tools. The cognitive conception stresses metaphors as means i.e. end, to a better understanding of cognitive processes (Carver & Pikalo, 2008a).

To comprehend metaphor both within its original field of metaphor analysis as well as applying it within the study of critical geopolitics, this paragraph describes the conceptions of metaphor analysis in discourse. Often, different approaches on metaphor bespeak the role of metaphor with respect to discourse as –to speak in the words of Carver & Pikalo (2008)-‐ ‘inevitably insufficient’, because they primarily concentrate on individualistic cognitive processes (Carver & Pikalo, 2008b: 126). It is not the case that metaphor and discourse influence each other from their independent and exclusive positions, rather metaphor is embedded in discourse. Discourses are known being the ‘superstructure’ of texts, structuring entire topic areas, creating order in social knowledge (Van Dijk, 1980; in Carver & Pikalo, 2008b: 127) and authorising specific metaphors. Hülsse (2006) states that regarding to separate discourses a particular stock of metaphors is commonly used when referring to its topic (Hülsse, 2006). Concerning metaphor and discourse, Gee (1999) claims: “Very often people are unaware of the full significance of these metaphors, which usually have come to be taken for granted. Sometimes these metaphors are connected to ‘master models’ in the sense that the tacit theories they imply, are used widely to organize a number of significant domains for a given culture or social group” (Gee, 1999: 84). Cameron (1999) agrees to that, noticing

(21)

that metaphoricity can only in practice be identified when studied in particular socio-‐cultural groups and discourse contexts (Cameron, 1999b).

3.1.3 Relativity of truth

Central to the understanding of metaphor concerning the geopolitical role of Turkey is the way in which metaphors determine what is real for us. Lakoff & Johnson (1980) -‐fathers of reconceptualising metaphor in a structuring and determining way-‐ claim that “because of much of our social reality is understood in metaphorical terms, and since our conception of the physical world is partly metaphorical, metaphor plays a very significant role in determining what is real for us” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This claim endorses the importance of analyzing and critically deconstructing the different representations concerning geopolitical Turkey. Metaphors project the meaning of a familiar issue on a less familiar and abstract one (Hülsse, 2006: 397), and by doing this we consider the meaning of the metaphor to be better suitable and we consciously try to alter truth. The new sense given to a word through metaphor can eventually change the meaning of a word.

Metaphor being a central part in the construction of reality already implies the relativity of truth. The truth is always relative to a conceptual system that is largely defined by metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). What is interpreted as ‘scientific truth’ is often a metaphorical representation; the simplifying representation becomes plain truth (Brown, 2003). Lakoff & Johnson’s thesis on the role of truth reflects the essence of metaphor use and thereby the importance of this research. When truth is relative and metaphor fulfils a role in the construction of this truth, then possible discursiveness around metaphor use with regard to geopolitical Turkey needs to be argued. People, who get to impose their metaphors on culture, religion, states or whatsoever, get to define what we consider to be absolutely and objectively true (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The metaphors projected on Turkey can be characterized by their way of categorizing and subdividing geopolitical order. Through accentuation of difference, Turkey is bordered in a way that even a metaphor that implies all kinds of possibilities for connecting and opening-‐up, such as the ‘Turkey is a gate metaphor’, creates a boundary. In this sense, the gate opens up the world towards differences. We perceive various things in the natural world as entities, often projecting boundaries and surfaces on them where no clear-‐cut boundaries or surfaces exist naturally. Hence, could it be that this metaphor of Turkey being a gate only makes sense in our categorized geopolitical world, but meanwhile

The Bridge that Widens the Gap Critical Geopolitical research concerning the construction of post-colonial EU-Turkey relations

The Bridge that Widens the Gap

Critical Geopolitical research concerning the

construction of post-­‐colonial EU-­‐Turkey relations

Richard Huttinga

The Bridge that Widens the Gap

Critical Geopolitical research concerning the

construction of post-­‐colonial EU-­‐Turkey relations

Masterthesis Human geography

Specialization: ‘Europe: borders, identities and governance’

Richard Huttinga

S0725749

Nijmegen, June 2013

Thesis supervisor: dr. O.T. Kramsch

Radboud University Nijmegen

Acknowledgement

Temporary One, Fleetwood Mac

Where are you darlin', when my

Moon is risin', and your

Sun is shinin' down

What are you doin', are you

Missin' me

The way that I'm missin' you now

The river goes on and on, and the

Sea that divides us is a

Temporary one, and the

Bridge will bring us back together

What are you doin', goin'

Down in to Soho as I

Get my rest tonight

What are you doin', are you

Busy with your world

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 Relevance

1.2 Structure

2 Research Design

2.1 Research goal & research question

2.2 Legitimizing

3 Theoretical Framework

3.1 Metaphor analysis

construction of post-‐colonial EU-‐Turkey relations

construction of post-‐colonial EU-‐Turkey relations